Category Archives: politics

Post navigation

After Brexit, I was unfriended by many friends and family members. Some I still speak to, some I don’t. I was so unbelievably ecstatic after Brexit that I quite lost my normal composed, modest demure and instead decided to party-like-it’s-my-birthday for a week and become rather un-ladylike in my normally reserved and shy online conversations.

Ok, that is not exactly true. I’m a loudmouth at the best of times. I would describe myself as somewhat of an activist in this new socially conservative worldwide movement that we are now seeing sweep over Europe and America.

Brexit was a massive, peaceful and very British ‘up-yours’ to the Euro-Globalists that have sought to rule over our Sovereign nation for decades. It was a quiet and polite ‘sod off’ to the unwanted imposition of the State into ordinary people’s lives. And it was very much a ‘jolly good show’ for all those normal quiet people who have been forced to remain silent and maintain a stiff upper lip for years and years and years.

Along with Brexit we have seen Hungary and Poland elect socially conservative governments and the socially conservative parties all across Europe are growing in popularity every day.

The BBC would label these people ‘far-right racist bigots’ i’m sure, and by the BBC’s standards they probably are – but let’s not kid ourselves that the BBC are anything less that a far-left propaganda machine.

Trumps election, I would argue, is even more important than Brexit because rather than just opt-out of something like the UK did, Trump has the power to actually do stuff. It will not really be down to him personally, he is not some sort of messiah, but what he is, is a gateway for change and reform. The people with the opportunity for power now will be those who are of the socially conservative mindset. Not racists, not bigots, just ordinary people who do not want ludicrous notions such as transgender bathrooms and open borders.

The entire socially conservative movement is all about the ordinary people taking back control of their lives, having the freedom to make their own decisions rather than the State enforcing rules upon them, and not being forced to live under the dictatorship of ‘progression’.

So what’s not to love? The future looks bright right now.

The difficulty comes when friends and family cannot accept what is happening. I would argue that most of these people are living in a sort of brainwashed state right now. I know from my own experience that people are generally lazy in terms of gathering information and are generally happy to be spoon-fed information from one source (usually the TV) rather than actually start looking around at different sources from different political perspectives and then making a fully informed decision of important issues.

So it is very difficult to have any sort of discussion with these people when their one source of information is wrongly telling them that Brexit is the end of the world and Trump is the antichrist – of which they are perfectly happy to believe every word. And the popular pathetic journalistic style of hysterical hyper emotion and aggressive self pity only goes to make matters worse, because then your friends and family believe they are being personally attacked.

So now many of us, myself included, are once again having to trudge our way through the minefield of semi informed political opinion and media lies that our friends and relatives believe to be true. Christmas is going to be fun this year.

Clark Griswold in National Lampoons Christmas Vacation.

Many of us will be trying to keep it together this Christmas with the heroics of Clark Griswold. Some of us will deserve medals for not initiating WW3 at the dinner table. Others will find the best option is to sit in a nice quiet corner with a large bottle of Harvey’s Bristol Creme.

To be honest, a large part of me just wants to say ‘Forget it! I’ve had enough!’ I’d rather just be among people who understand me. People who do not have in the back of their minds that they are “worried” about me because they think i’m some sort of Nazi for saying that we should have a much stricter immigration system – similar to that of Australia. Are the Australians all Nazi’s? Of course not.

But I find myself unable to walk away for the pure and simple reason that I might be the only person in these peoples lives who supports this socially conservative movement, and therefore the only person who is able to debunk the bigot Nazi stereotype that the media has had them believe that I am.

How I long to climb back into the safety of the basket with all the other deplorables and revel in our new found glory. But that is beginning to sound like i’m creating my own little ‘safe-space’, and that must never happen. To recluse back into a perfect deplorable world is to allow the media full and unrestricted access to the minds of my loved ones, with absolutely no antidote to the BS.

So I will carry on seeing these people. I will hold my tongue most of the time like I have done for the last few decades while they have been in power. And every time they make an assumption or use a label like bigot or racist, then I will be there on the receiving end of their frustration, misunderstanding and prejudice until they realise that what they are saying is not true, or logical, or good.

Watching the news this morning, I was fascinated to hear the story of Christine Weick – the woman who was thrown out of the National Cathedral in Washington DC. The Cathedral had been loaned to the local Muslim group to use during their Friday prayers. As the prayers began, Christine stood up, pointed at the large Cross, and proclaimed that “Jesus Christ is our Lord and saviour”. The Cathedral authorities, embarrassed by her behaviour, swiftly removed her. But yet she shouted it louder all the more.

This scenario is what is taking place in today’s Gospel:

“Now it happened that as he drew near to Jericho there was a blind man sitting at the side of the road begging. When he heard the crowd going past he asked what it was all about, and they told him that Jesus the Nazarene was passing by. So he called out, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have pity on me.’ The people in front scolded him and told him to keep quiet, but he only shouted all the louder, ‘Son of David, have pity on me.’ Jesus stopped and ordered them to bring the man to him, and when he came up, asked him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ ‘Sir,’ he replied, ‘let me see again.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Receive your sight. Your faith has saved you.’ And instantly his sight returned and he followed him praising God, and all the people who saw it gave praise to God.” – Luke 18:35-43

To call Jesus ‘Son of David’ is to recognise him as the rightful King. Notice how the crowd tell him to be quiet? How embarrassing; it might offend someone. Well, the truth is that Jesus Christ is the eternal, true and righteous King of all, and that includes the group of Muslims praying in Washington Cathedral. To deny this fact would be to deny the nature of Christ and his Kingship. Islam does not recognise Jesus as King, Christine Weick does. It was she however who was not welcome in the Cathedral yesterday.

To call Christ ‘King’ is an outward sign of faith. So much so that Jesus restores the sight of men. It is also the cry of martyrs, many of whom throughout history were martyred shouting ‘Vivat Christus Rex’ (long live Christ the King). Forever, Hosanna to the Son of David. Amen.

Two Slovakian parents have failed to block the adoption of two of their sons by a same sex couple in Kent.

The Catholic couple, who are of Roma origin, argued their two young children would grow up alienated from their family and community. Taking the case to the High Court, they accused the local authority of social engineering by attempting to turn the children white and middle class. An earlier hearing heard evidence they had neglected their children.

In the Matter of J and S concerned two boys, ‘J’, aged four, and ‘S’, who will turn two in July. Their ‘Roma’ parents come from the Slovak Republic. They were brought to West Yorkshire by traffickers and initially lived in “cramped” bed and breakfast accommodation. They later moved to a larger home with help from Hope for Justice, a charity based in Manchester which works with victims of trafficking.

Social services became involved and eventually their five youngest children were made the subject of care proceedings. The local authority applied for care orders for the four youngest, plus an order which would place for the oldest, aged 15, under its supervision for 12 months. In addition, they sought ‘placement orders’ for the two youngest, J and S, putting them in the care of prospective adopters.

The orders were granted by Mrs Justice Theis at a hearing in May last year. The parents then applied for permission to oppose the planned adoptions, making an unsuccessful bid to the European Court of Human Rights. In due course the case came before Sir James Munby at the High Court in London. A scheduled hearing earlier this month was adjourned after scheduled interpreters failed to show up. Their parents’ counsel was acting pro bono. The President said: “This is a very sad case”. Nevertheless, he rejected the parents’ application for leave to oppose the adoption order, under section 47 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. This deals with ‘conditions for making adoption orders’. The President said the fact that J and S had been placed for adoption with a same sex couple did not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances to justify an objection by the parents under the Act.

In their witness statement, the parents had declared:

“Our family is a Slovak Roma family and we are practising Catholics and a homosexual couple as potential adopters is very different from what Mrs Justice Theis had in mind in her judgment as this will not promote the children’s Roma heritage or their Catholic faith … Whilst we have no doubt that the prospective adopters have been properly assessed by the Local Authority, they are a homosexual couple and as such their lifestyle goes against our Roma culture and lifestyle. The children will not be able to be brought up in the Catholic faith because of the conflicts between Catholicism and homosexuality. They would not be able to maintain their Catholic faith if they are adopted by this couple and even if it was promised that they would attend church the children would at some stage be taught or learn of the attitude of the church to same sex couples. This would undoubtedly be upsetting to them and cause them to be in conflict between their religion and home life. Slovakia still does not recognise same sex couples and so their Slovak roots and values will not be maintained. In 2013 the Catholic Bishops in Slovakia condemned same sex marriage.”

Mr Justice Munby responded:

“I do not see how this can be described as a change in circumstances. There is nothing in all the material I have seen to suggest that the children’s placement with the prospective adopters was inappropriate or wrong, let alone irrational or unlawful, having regard to the principles that the local authority had to apply…Nor… has it been demonstrated that the placement was of a kind not contemplated by Theis J. On the contrary, Theis J expressly held, as we have seen, that the children’s welfare needs “outweigh” the impact that adoption would have on their Roma identity.”

The President continued:

“Of course, any judge should have a decent respect to the opinions of those who come here from a foreign land, particularly if they have come from another country within the European Union….But the fact is, the law is, that, at the end of the day, I have to judge matters according to the law of England and by reference to the standards of reasonable men and women in contemporary English society. The parents’ views, whether religious, cultural, secular or social, are entitled to respect but cannot be determinative. They have made their life in this country and cannot impose their own views either on the local authority or on the court.”

Sir James Munby also said ‘It was, in my view, unfortunate that the local authority should have referred at one stage in the proceedings to the parents’ views on homosexuality in such a way as to suggest that they are bigoted. The label is unnecessary and hurtful.’ Judge: Yesterday, the country’s most senior family judge, Sir James Munby, upheld the adoption plan, but criticised the social workers for the way they condemned the parents because of their views. His criticism is understood to follow a report submitted to the court by social workers which said: ‘The attitude of the parents could be perceived as bigoted.’

The parents are appealing to the European Court of Human Rights, although it is likely it will take months before their case is heard.

Lucie Boddington, from Děti Patří Rodičům – or Children Belong to Parents – a Slovakian charity which has been supporting the couple, said she hoped the Slovak government would request the case be heard more quickly. She told the BBC the parents were “desperate” and had cried openly when they heard the judge’s decision. “This is I think in some way a cultural misunderstanding,” she said. “In Slovakia, they were a model family – very different from the way some Roma live. The father is hard-working, well-educated; he wanted the best for his children.”

This comes at a time when social workers are under pressure from the Government to abandon rules which have meant that adopted children can be placed only with new families of the same ethnic or cultural background. The doctrine has been blamed for preventing ethnic minority children from being adopted by a stable family, because there are two few people from ethnic minorities are willing to adopt.

“We are absolutely committed to improving the quality of service and we need to have social workers who are progressive, enthusiastic, enabling, empowering, practical and frankly just able to do the job well,” says Mairead MacNeil, director of specialist children’s services at Kent county council. “I believe we have got a good core of social workers who can; we just need to build on that.”

A recent Ofsted report following an inspection rated the council’s looked after children services as “adequate”, with “good” capacity to improve. In 2010, the same services had been judged “inadequate”.

In June 2013 Kent County Council Came under criticism in a report by the Local Government Ombudsman, after it failed to provide proper support to an abandoned boy.

Sir James Munby

According to ‘Pink News’ The head of the High Court’s Family Division, Lord Justice James Munby, is a strong supporter of equality for gay people.

In November 2013 he gave a shocking address in which he said happily judges no longer promote virtue and morality or discourage vice and immorality’. In particular Judge Munby publicly repudiates Christianity and Christian morality, and welcomes the legalisation of abortion, gay sex and adultery.

In a speech in London, Sir James Munby said judges ‘happily’ no longer had a role in enforcing morality, unlike in the past when they routinely condemned homosexuality, adultery and promoted Victorian social attitudes. ‘Once upon a time, the perceived function of the judges was to promote virtue and discourage vice and immorality,’ he said. ‘I doubt one would now hear that from the judicial bench. Today, surely, the judicial task is to assess matters by the standards of reasonable men and women in 2013 – not by the standards of their parents in 1970.’

Sir James said that Victorian judges promoted ‘virtue and morality’ while discouraging ‘vice and immorality’ with a ‘very narrow view of sexual morality’. He cited laws banning gay sex and abortion and rulings that condemned women for adultery. He added that the influence of Christian churches in the courts had also disappeared in recent years.

He said: ‘Happily for us, the days are past when the business of judges was the enforcement of morals or religious beliefs.’ He said that modern-day judges had rightly abandoned any claim to be ‘guardians of public morality’, just as Christian clerics no longer claimed to speak as the ‘defining voices of morality and of the law of marriage and the family. Today, we live in a largely secular society which, insofar as it remains religious at all, is now increasingly diverse in religious affiliation.’ he said. ‘Although, historically, this country is part of the Christian West and although it has an established church which is Christian, we sit as secular judges serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths, sworn to do justice “to all manner of people”. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy. All are entitled to respect, so long as they are “legally and socially acceptable” and not “immoral or socially obnoxious” or “pernicious”.’ he said.

He also said courts would overrule parents’ religious beliefs if it was in their child’s best interests, such as if a child of Jehovah’s Witnesses needed a blood transfusion. ‘We live in a largely secular society which, insofar as it remains religious at all, is now increasingly diverse in religious affiliation,’ he added.

He said a believer’s faith was not the ‘business of government or of the secular courts’, ‘although, of course, the courts will pay every respect to the individual’s or family’s religious principles’.

In 2007 he was the presiding judge at a landmark case that ruled that a Christian couple should be banned from fostering children because of their views on homosexuality. At the time, making his judgement he said: “The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence over religious beliefs”.

One of the greatest weaknesses of todays society, and one of the greatest sadnesses of our time is the dehumanisation of us all. If you take a step back and try to look upon your life from the outside it can look a little something like this:

Is it any wonder that 1 in 4 of us will at some point in our lives suffer with low self-worth, anxiety and depression? And even worse than this is the fact that we constantly sedate ourselves to this pain with a self prescribed diet of mindless entertainment and quick fixes. Is there really no way out? Is this really how life is meant to be? Am i really nothing more than a rat in this horrible unending race? Is that what we are – a race of rats?!

Please, please please please do not believe that this conveyor belt drone like existence is how God wants you to spend the rest of your life. You are unique. You are amazing. You are loved. Before He formed us in the womb He knew us. Luke 12:7 tells us that“…even the hairs of your head are all counted…”.

Psalm 139 tells us :

13 For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works;that I know very well.15 My frame was not hidden from you,when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.16 Your eyes beheld my unformed substance.In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.

We are Fearfully and Wonderfully made. And more than that God had already written His plan for each and every single day of our lives as His eyes beheld our unformed substance. Wow!

God has a plan for your life.

Eucharistic Adoration is (viewed through the eyes of todays society) completely bonkers. You are not producing anything. You are not gaining anything. You are not entertaining yourself. In fact i would go as far as to say that Eucharistic Adoration is society’s ultimate rebellion. When we spend time in silence with our creator we begin to realise who we really are . We begin to see ourselves as He sees us, and realise that He never intended us to be a number – a rat in a rat race. We begin to realise that we are unique, we are amazing and we are loved.

Mother Teresa puts it like this:

“That is why I encourage you to make your Holy Hour (of Adoration) through Mary, the cause of our joy, and you may discover that no where on earth are you more welcomed, no where on earth are you more loved, than by Jesus, living and truly present in the Most Blessed Sacrament. The time you spend with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is the best time that you will spend on earth. Each moment that you spend with Jesus will deepen your union with Him and make you soul everlastingly more glorious and beautiful in Heaven, and will help bring about an everlasting peace on earth.”“When you look at the crucifix you understand how much Jesus loved you. When you look at the Sacred Host you understand how much Jesus loves you NOW. I beg the Blessed Mother to touch the hearts of all Parish priests that they may have Eucharistic Adoration in their parishes, and that it may spread throughout the entire world! – Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

For those of you who know me well, you will know that I have had my own small business working from home for the past 9 years. I make Wedding and Party cakes. I trained hard for 2 years to gain the skills and qualifications to go into this industry and even converted my home to be able to run a business from there. It has been wonderful as I have been able to work on and off these past 9 years around having children. Thankfully at the moment I am currently not working as we are expecting our third child, but I’m afraid that with recent political developments regarding same-sex marriage I will be unable to carry on with the business in the future.

The problem lies here – I am a Catholic. I believe that marriage can only exist between a woman and a man. I believe that children have the right to a mother and a father. I believe that taking part in homosexual acts is sinful – (it causes one to turn away from God and so harms the persons involved) and therefor it is something that can not be celebrated. I certainly could not profit financially from making a wedding cake for a gay couple.

When Civil Partnerships became legal in 2004 I had to make the choice of what to do if I was asked to make a cake for a gay couple. I decided at the time that the best way to handle it was to apologise saying that I was already booked up on that date. This of course was a lie and I felt very uncomfortable doing it. The other alternative would have been to try to explain that I was unable to make their cake because I disagreed with gay weddings for religious reasons. As my website had my address and all other contact details I decided that this could put me and my family in a position of danger.

I carried on in this way on and off for the next 9 years (in between having my children) and it seemed to work fairly well except for the awful guilty feeling I had because I was being forced to lie about being too busy to make their cakes.

So why not carry on the same way after my third child is born?

I feel the political atmosphere in the UK has changed dramatically over the past 12 months since David Cameron announced out of the blue that he wanted to re-define marriage. It has become nasty – militant even. You now hear slogans such as “Fair is more important than Faith” and “Equality overrides free speech” and the word “Bigot” is being thrown around like it was going out of fashion.

David Burrows MP told the Daily Telegraph last week that “In the last few days we have heard of a street preacher in Cambridge: Whilst he was speaking to the public about marriage a member of the crowd called the police because, “Anyone who believes in man/woman only marriage should be sent to jail. Equality overrides free speech and your views are homophobic, intolerant and very very offensive. Nobody should be allowed to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman in the 21st Century, we’re calling the police and we’re calling them now.” The street preacher was filmed on mobile phones, as the small crowd declared they had all of the ‘evidence to put him in jail.’

Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the police retreated and went away. However it was a close call, and this even before the law has been changed. The problem is that the Same-sex marriage Bill risks fermenting such attacks on freedom of speech. The Bill creates a state orthodoxy which gives succour to the intolerant baying crowd or the politically correct council in discriminating against supporters of traditional marriage.”

If we take a look at Canada who re-defined marriage in 2005 we can see that approx. 300 Christians have now been prosecuted because of their beliefs in traditional marriage. In March of this year Canada’s supreme court ruled that even claiming that homosexual behaviour is immoral is now classified as ‘Hate Speech’. The court also explained that truth was no defence since “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/03/06/canadian-supreme-court-ruling-has-implications-for-christian-witness/

I now regularly receive abusive comments on my blog and via Facebook, the most recent being a few moments ago from an atheist gentleman (I use that term sparingly) who likes to troll the Christian Concern Facebook page:

Regarding the same-sex marriage bill he tells me: “Ah Clare, I have to call stupid when I see it, nothing is going to change except that a few bigots are going to find it hard to survive in the real world without having to rightly hold their tongue whilst doing their jobs. I will Gloat and laugh, you come from one of the most intolerant groups this land has to offer and every time you try and hold on to a bit of your self proclaimed superiority the country tells you to stuff it. Your only complaint is that you are going to be prevented from discriminating as much as you used to, Marriage belongs to all the people of the country, Suck it up and try not to be to paranoid, its a long life to spend being as bitter as you and many of your fellow travellers sound. You lost AGAIN”.

What really gets me about all of this is that these people are shouting under the banners of equality, freedom and fairness. Do they seriously think it is fair that in the UK in 2013 I feel so threatened by possible prosecution, persecution and even violence towards me and my family because the law is about to discriminate against us because we are Catholic (we could be Protestant, Muslim, Sikh, Orthodox Jews or just plain non-religious defenders of traditional marriage) that I feel unable to carry on with my Wedding Cake business?

I am being asked, sorry – TOLD to put my beliefs to one side because they are no longer welcome in this country. I put it to them that THAT is not fair, or equal, or acceptable. In a progressive, tolerant society I would not have to hide my beliefs for fear of prosecution or persecution. People who believe in equality must accept that not everyone is going to hold the same views as them. I am happy to live peacefully alongside people who hold different beliefs to me – why can the liberal community not do the same?

Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him, and he will act. He will make your vindication shine like the light, and the justice of your cause like the noonday. Be still before the Lord, and wait patiently for him; do not fret over those who prosper in their way, over those who carry out evil devices. Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath. Do not fret—it leads only to evil. For the wicked shall be cut off, but those who wait for the Lord shall inherit the land. – Psalm 37.

I was overwhelmed to hear the MP’s tell of how much mail they had received on the same-sex marriage issue. They said it was the most they had ever received on one single issue, and the vast, vast majority of it opposed the bill. (Of course those in favour decided not to talk about their bulging mail bags – because that would put them in a position where they would look as if they were IGNORING their constituents!)

But what really struck me yesterday while watching the same-sex marriage debate in parliament was how un-equal the legislation actually is. So much so that David Cameron has actually had the word ‘Equal’ removed from the title of the bill! The main points of inequality are that same-sex marriages do not require fidelity, or even consummation. Therefor, the grounds for divorce are completely different from those of a hetero marriage. And if equality was really the goal then surely civil partnerships should also be offered to hetero couples? (This would however create a situation in which it was legally viable for me to marry my sister! – or even my son! which would probably make the whole thing a laughing stock right?! – but hey, each to their own – we wouldn’t want to discriminate against people who want to marry within their own families would we? After all if the two people really love each other then what’s the problem?!…)

(Here is a lovely pic of the happy couple – just before they formalise their non- faithful, non-consummatory, legally equal, hetero civil wedding-marriage!… Lol! – just kidding!)

Here are some of the MP’s comments opposing the bill from yesterday’s debate:

Tory John Glen (Salisbury) questioned the politics of the move: “By a factor of a least 30 to one my constituents have expressed their opposition to this. The level of disappointment of a much larger minority, as witnessed by the 635,000 who have signed the coalition for marriage petition, is keenly felt and will, in my view, be a highly motivated electoral minority in future elections.”

Senior Tory Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee, said: “I will vote against this measure tonight not because I think the world will end if we see it pass but because I have serious misgivings that in spite of the minister’s commendable efforts, recognised by the Church of England, it is impossible to guarantee that religious freedom will not be compromised.”

David Burrowes said he had received death threats about his opposition to the measure and his children had been taunted and told “their dad’s a bigot”. He said he was “very sad” at Mr Cameron’s plan and added: “The redefinition downgrades marriage to a personal relationship not bound by the obligations to society, community and family which have stood the test of time and is an increasingly popular institution.”

Former minister Edward Leigh said the plans were an affront to many traditional Conservatives. “We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage otherwise what, I ask, is a Conservative Party for? Indeed we are alienating people who have voted for us for all their lives, leaving them with no one to vote for.”

Tory former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth said the legislation was a “massive change” which “deeply affects the core fabric of our society through the challenge it poses to the whole institution of marriage”.

Conservative Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) said: “It is not possible to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, has been historically, remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory, Orwellian almost, for any Government of any political persuasion to seek to come along and try to re-write the lexicon. It will not do.” It had been suggested, he said, that a civil union bill could be created “that applies to all people irrespective or their sexuality, or their relationships, and that means brothers and brothers and sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters as well”. Sir Roger stressed he did not subscribe to the notion, but added he recognised the merit in the argument.

The size of the vote against the Bill’s second reading indicated that scores of Tory MPs opposed the measure but a number of Labour MPs also spoke against the plans.

Stoke on Trent South MP Robert Flello said: “Civil partnerships are equal to marriage – they might not have the same name but they are equal. “It’s not simply about the love and commitment of the happy couple, as important as that is. If marriage was simply about love and commitment, we would first have to define love as being sexual love otherwise non-sexual relationships based on love and commitment would also have to be treated as marriage if that really were the definition of equality.” Mr Flello said the Bill would create two forms of marriage – traditional marriage and same sex marriage – which were still not “equal” with the plans trying to “engineer cultural equivalence”.

Labour’s Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) said the Bill would change the very nature of marriage and law and was both “hasty and destructive”.

Dr Sharon James, Coalition For Marriage said “We’re absolutely delighted at the scale of those MPs who voted against this. It’s way more than we thought it would be at the start of our campaign. I’m disturbed to hear many MPs say that people are writing to them to say they disagree with gay marriage, but that they’re wrong. Those MPs are holding their constituents in contempt. However, I was pleased to hear in the parliamentary debate that some MPs talked of being flooded with letters and emails from people against gay marriage, and that those MPs are listening. This isn’t a done deal, it’s the beginning of a parliamentary process.”

So you see, David Cameron now has a huge problem. The majority of his own party (approx. 140) voted against him last night. and about another 75 conservatives abstained. This was a much larger opposition than anyone was expecting. It now causes Davy Boy a real problem. And it is a problem that is not going to go away. How long do you think it will be before we start to hear shouts of no confidence coming from the bowels of the conservative party?! Tread carefully David – you’re on thin ice.

Three mothers from South London have come together to represent their communities in support of traditional marriage. Whilst all respect the fact that individuals can live how they choose, they believe that marriage is, and always has been, a sacred institution between 1 woman and 1 man. All three have signed a letter explaining their views and presented it to their local MP:

Katie McGowan, a Protestant Christian says “Our faiths dictate that ‘marriage’ is an institution between one man and one woman. In countries where marriage has already been redefined, people of faith have faced prosecution for upholding their beliefs. Evidence shows that governments have not been able to protect ordinary people who believe in traditional marriage. We worry that, should the bill be successful, teachers will be sacked for refusing to endorse gay marriage in the classroom, and couples will be banned from fostering children if they disagree with gay marriage. Obviously, these are just a couple of examples.
Furthermore, it may be assumed that the general public are largely in favour this proposal. However, the voters have not been given a say. None of the parties included it in their election manifestos. Marriage is going to be redefined over our heads. In a recent poll by YouGov for The Sunday Times, published on 11 March 2012, a larger proportion of those questioned were against gay marriage than were for it.”

Asma Dar, a Muslim says “Marriage is meant for 1 woman and 1 man, and it is the place to raise a family. We believe that all children have the right to a Mother and a Father. Sadly, however well-meaning they are, a same-sex couple simply cannot offer this to a child. If my husband and I were to die suddenly and our 3 girls were taken into the care of the local authority, it would be possible that they be placed with two men. This would not only be against our wishes and our faith, but it would also rob our girls of any chance of having a mother. What indeed is the legal position of the wishes of deceased parents on this issue?
According to the 2011 Office for National Statistics survey, the gay population in the UK stands at 1%. The population for Christians and Muslims combined stands at 64.1%. The majority of UK residents oppose the bill on the grounds of faith. If marriage is re-defined, the new law will be forced upon millions of people who strongly oppose it. This is especially true in the area of education and adoption. We are stepping into unknown territory and no-one can predict the effect this law will have on children and on society as a whole.”

Clare Short, a Roman Catholic says “I think it is a disgrace that teachers could face being sacked if they fail to promote same-sex relationships to children as young as age 4. Why doesn’t the government concentrate on teaching our kids to read and write, rather than forcing sexual information on them that they really don’t need to know about at that young age. This is a deeply personal political issue that is doing more harm than good in society. I believe it is creating unwanted tension between the gay and straight communities. It is not something people of faith are ‘just going to get used to’ over time. It is an issue of such importance, that we are willing to fight against it for as long as it takes. There is a particularly nasty undertone in the UK at the moment where people are being made to feel guilty for expressing their opposition to the re-definition of marriage on the grounds of being ‘politically incorrect’. This sort of political bullying is completely unacceptable in a civilised democratic society. We hope from reading our story that more people will find the confidence to contact their MP to voice their opinion. Every voice counts.
The issue of re-defining marriage is uniting people of all faiths, and also those who do not have a faith. David Cameron needs to realise that the vast majority of people in the UK do not want marriage re-defined.”